Close
Enter your
text here

Proportionality

James D. Zinn, Managing Director of Huron Consulting Group: eDiscovery Trends

This is the second of the 2015 LegalTech New York (LTNY) Thought Leader Interview series. eDiscovery Daily interviewed several thought leaders at LTNY this year and generally asked each of them the following questions:

  1. What are your general observations about LTNY this year and how it fits into emerging trends? Do you think American Lawyer Media (ALM) should consider moving LTNY to a different time of year to minimize travel disruptions due to weather?
  2. After our discussion last year regarding the new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, additional changes were made to Rule 37(e). Do you see those changes as being positive and do you see the new amendments passing through Congress this year?
  3. Last year, most thought leaders agreed that, despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery. Do you think anything has been done in the past year to improve the situation?
  4. What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

Today’s thought leader is James D. Zinn. James is Managing Director of Huron Consulting Group. James is responsible for leading Huron Legal’s technology vision and strategy globally. He directs the practice’s software engineering, information technology, and product management teams. James is responsible for driving innovation by identifying and incubating emerging technologies and technology-driven solutions with relevance to Huron Legal. He has more than twenty years of experience developing and delivering services and solutions to clients.

{Editor’s Note: Because of travel issues, James did not make it to LTNY this year, but we were able to re-schedule the interview for after the show.}

What are your general observations about LTNY this year and about emerging trends in general for 2015? Do you think American Lawyer Media (ALM) should consider moving LTNY to a different time of year to minimize travel disruptions due to weather?

While I didn’t make it to the show, from what I’ve heard from my colleagues, all of the themes from last year seem to be continuing to mature, including information governance and the convergence of IG and discovery. Also, the focus on security certainly took a step forward this year and the use of predictive coding and other analytical technologies has become a perennial topic and has continued to move forward. So, what I saw was a continued maturing and growth of last year’s themes, which I think will continue throughout 2015.

As for the possibility of moving LTNY to a different time of year, I think that’s a big change. Certainly, New York is much nicer in the fall than in the winter, so I’d love to see a change from that perspective. Realistically, I think that there is a lot of inertia behind the current scheduling, so it would be a big change and disruption to the industry to try and move it.

After our discussion last year regarding the new amendments to discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, additional changes were made to Rule 37(e). Do you see those changes as being positive and do you see the new amendments passing through Congress this year?

I don’t think there will be any roadblocks. I think the proposed changes to the Federal rules are useful and I think we’re already starting to see the impact as our clients have started to act consistent with the proposed changes. So, I don’t really see any challenge with them being adopted and incorporated into current practices; in fact, I think that adoption has already begun.

Some of this could be due to the pending rules changes and some could be due to the maturing of organizations and the industry in general. We have seen the increased use of technology to try to wrestle down the volumes of information. We’re seeing more targeted collection, more targeted use of analytics earlier in the process to reduce data volumes, even before the more traditional review stages begin. We are seeing an increasing number of projects where the data volumes are getting culled much more quickly than they have in the past. The days of collecting large volumes and dumping those large volumes indiscriminately into the discovery process and then sorting it all out are evolving into much more careful efforts. As a result, we see the downstream benefits already starting to appear where there’s less need for brute forcing your way through a corpus of documents.

Last year, most thought leaders agreed that, despite numerous resources in the industry, most attorneys still don’t know a lot about eDiscovery. Do you think anything has been done in the past year to improve the situation?

I think that there has been a continued progress in that area. Our client attorneys that we see on a regular basis are absolutely more knowledgeable about eDiscovery, aware of the issues associated with it and how to address those issues more efficiently. From our view, there’s a clear maturing of that knowledge in the industry.

What are you working on that you’d like our readers to know about?

At Huron Legal, we’re continuing to try to support these trends by offering technology everywhere where it can improve the process and make the process as cost-efficient as possible. We’ve continued, much as the industry has, to try to advance and mature those solutions. I mentioned predictive coding earlier and that has been a recurring theme for years and I think predictive coding technology has slowly continued to get better and easier and, as a result, become more adopted within the industry. We’re also seeing a lot more interest in security and with the increase in security breaches and those breaches becoming more publicized, there has been a lot more interest from our clients in understanding how we’re protecting their data, as well as what steps they can also take to protect their data. So, we have a lot of exciting things going on in that area as well.

Also, a little outside the eDiscovery realm but closely related, is cost management. We recently acquired a technology company called Sky Analytics, which focuses on helping lawyers, predominantly corporate law departments, to analyze and understand their external spend (of which discovery is a large component). It helps them to evaluate the efficiency of the services that are being provided by their outside counsel. This fits in well with our efforts to support organizations in managing their legal costs by using analytics and technology to provide meaningful, real-time insight. We’ve made some big strides in this area in the past few months and it will continue to be a significant focus for Huron Legal.

Thanks, James, for participating in the interview!

And to the readers, as always, please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic!

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Appeals Court Reverses Award for Attorney Fees for Overbroad ESI Requests: eDiscovery Case Law

In Bertoli et al. v. City of Sebastopol, et al., No.A132916 (Ct. App. Ca. Jan. 20, 2015), the California Court of Appeals, while not disagreeing with the trial court’s finding that the plaintiff’s ESI request was “unfocused and nonspecific, unduly burdensome, and an alarming invasion of privacy rights”, disagreed that their Public Records Act (PRA) requests were “clearly frivolous” and reversed the trial court’s order for attorneys fees and costs.

Case Summary

The plaintiff, after being hit by a car while walking in a crosswalk, was rendered permanently physically and mentally disabled. Her attorney served PRA requests seeking electronically stored information (ESI) on the defendant in anticipation of her personal injury lawsuit. There was an initial request for collision reports, about which the defendant maintained it provided several records and offered for the plaintiff’s attorney to indicate which additional collision reports he wanted.

When the plaintiff served an additional 62 ESI requests, including requests to search private computers that the plaintiff believed could contain responsive documents, the defendant objected to the 62 separate requests as “overly extensive, overly broad and, in some cases, unlimited in time.” The defendant made suggestions to narrow the requests, and the plaintiff offered to pay for a third-party eDiscovery vendor to assist with the searches, but the disputes continued. Once the personal injury lawsuit was filed, the defendant set a deadline for the plaintiff’s attorney to complete his review. Ultimately, the parties could not reach an agreement on the ESI requests and the plaintiff filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate under the Public Records Act for relief.

In June 2011, the trial court – having “carefully weighed the competing interests at stake” – denied the petition. In its order, it noted that the defendant had shown a “remarkable degree of openness and cooperation” in its response to the plaintiff’s PRA requests and characterized the relief sought in the Petition as an “unprecedented fishing expedition” which would “constitute an alarming invasion of property rights, an extravagant use of limited city resources, and an unwanted green light for immoderate discovery.” Pursuant to the Public Records Act, the trial court deemed the petition “clearly frivolous” and ordered for the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s requested attorneys’ fees, which had risen from the initial request of $42,280 to $82,380. The plaintiff appealed the trial court’s finding of clear frivolousness in August 2011 and appealed the amount of fees awarded in March 2012.

The appellate court’s analysis agreed with the trial court’s finding that the plaintiff’s requests constituted an undue burden, but stated that “the mere fact that the Petition was impermissibly overbroad and therefore properly rejected by the trial court does not necessarily mean that it was entirely without merit. Rather, as stated above, it is an open issue whether and to what extent public records may be obtained from private computers under the PRA. Further, there was evidence that several current employees had responsive documents that were not disclosed and that certain city council members, at least, used their home computers for City-related business. Thus, despite the overbreadth of the Petition, it was not, on that basis, clearly frivolous.” As a result, the appellate court reversed the order for attorneys fees and costs.

So, what do you think? Should the unduly burdensome requests be enough to justify reimbursement of attorneys fees or was the appellate court decision correct? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Judge Shows Her Disgust via “Order on One Millionth Discovery Dispute”: eDiscovery Case Law

In Herron v. Fannie Mae, et al., 10-943 (RMC) (DC Feb. 2, 2015), DC District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer issued an order titled “Order on One Millionth Discovery Dispute” where she decided that “Contrary to its usual practice, the Court will rule immediately, in writing” on the latest discovery disputes between the plaintiff and defendant.

In this case, the plaintiff, a former vice president who returned to the defendant in 2009 as a consultant to help implement U.S. Department of Treasury mortgage foreclosure prevention programs, sued the defendant for wrongful termination, claiming she was fired after reporting what she believed were problems with how the defendant was handling those programs. In her four page order, Judge Collyer made clear her disgust with the process, as follows:

“The parties are inching towards the end of discovery, the time for which has been extended repeatedly. Most recently, this Court declared that all discovery will terminate at the end of February. The parties bring yet another discovery dispute before the Court and request a telephone conference (the Court’s preferred method of resolving discovery issues).

Much as the Court admires the advocacy of counsel, it is exhausted with these disputes. Contrary to its usual practice, the Court will rule immediately, in writing, based on Plaintiff’s letter dated January 30, 2015 (Letter) addressed to the Court and attachments and Fannie Mae’s letter dated February 2, 2015 addressed to the Court and attachments.”

With regard to the plaintiff’s request for “both documents and testimony from a Fannie Mae representative about . . . [t]he process by which bonuses were awarded…[and] [t]he criteria used by management…showing how corporate goals regarding the MHA Program (including HAMP…) were met”, Judge Collyer rejected the plaintiff’s requests stating:

“Even as narrowed by the parties, these deposition and document-request topics are highly overbroad…Her allegations of wrongful termination from a single contractor position on a single Program do not entitle her to the entirety of the confidential internal presentations and deliberations on executive bonuses by the Board of Directors for all of Fannie Mae’s executive staff for two years…These topics could have, and should have, been laser focused. They were not and will not be enforced.”

Judge Collyer also ruled on the plaintiff’s requests for 30(b)(6) witness testimony, granting the request on a limited basis in one instance and requiring the defendant to designate two previous deponents as 30(b)(6) witnesses to the extent of their prior testimony or produce a different 30(b)(6) witness.

So, what do you think? Are there WAY too many disputes regarding discovery today? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

The First 7 to 10 Days May Make or Break Your Case: eDiscovery Best Practices

Having worked with a client recently that was looking for some guidance at the outset of their case, it seemed appropriate to revisit this topic here.

When a case is filed, several activities must be completed within a short period of time (often as soon as the first seven to ten days after filing) to enable you to assess the scope of the case, where the key electronically stored information (ESI) is located and whether to proceed with the case or attempt to settle with opposing counsel. Here are several of the key early activities that can assist in deciding whether to litigate or settle the case.

Activities:

  • Create List of Key Employees Most Likely to have Documents Relevant to the Litigation: To estimate the scope of the case, it’s important to begin to prepare the list of key employees that may have potentially responsive data. Information such as name, title, eMail address, phone number, office location and where information for each is stored on the network is important to be able to proceed quickly when issuing hold notices and collecting their data. Some of these employees may no longer be with your organization, so you may have to determine whether their data is still available and where.
  • Issue Litigation Hold Notice and Track Results: The duty to preserve begins when you anticipate litigation; however, if litigation could not be anticipated prior to the filing of the case, it is certainly clear once the case if filed that the duty to preserve has begun. Hold notices must be issued ASAP to all parties that may have potentially responsive data. Once the hold is issued, you need to track and follow up to ensure compliance. Here are a couple of posts from 2012 regarding issuing hold notices and tracking responses.
  • Interview Key Employees: As quickly as possible, interview key employees to identify potential locations of responsive data in their possession as well as other individuals they can identify that may also have responsive data so that those individuals can receive the hold notice and be interviewed.
  • Interview Key Department Representatives: Certain departments, such as IT, Records or Human Resources, may have specific data responsive to the case. They may also have certain processes in place for regular destruction of “expired” data, so it’s important to interview them to identify potentially responsive sources of data and stop routine destruction of data subject to litigation hold.
  • Inventory Sources and Volume of Potentially Relevant Documents: Potentially responsive data can be located in a variety of sources, including: shared servers, eMail servers, employee workstations, employee home computers, employee mobile devices, portable storage media (including CDs, DVDs and portable hard drives), active paper files, archived paper files and third-party sources (consultants and contractors, including cloud storage providers). Hopefully, the organization already has created a data map before litigation to identify the location of sources of information to facilitate that process. It’s important to get a high level sense of the total population to begin to estimate the effort required for discovery.
  • Plan Data Collection Methodology: Determining how each source of data is to be collected also affects the cost of the litigation. Are you using internal resources, outside counsel or a litigation support vendor? Will the data be collected via an automated collection system or manually? Will employees “self-collect” any of their own data? If so, important data may be missed. Answers to these questions will impact the scope and cost of not only the collection effort, but the entire discovery effort.

These activities can result in creating a data map of potentially responsive information and a “probable cost of discovery” spreadsheet (based on initial estimated scope compared to past cases at the same stage) that will help in determining whether to proceed to litigate the case or attempt to settle with the other side.

So, what do you think? How quickly do you decide whether to litigate or settle? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Orders Defendant to Submit Further Declaration after Plaintiff Disputes its Claimed eDiscovery Costs – eDiscovery Case Law

In Bonillas v. United Air Lines Inc., No. C-12-06574(EDL) (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2014), California Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. LaPorte ordered the defendant to submit a further declaration supporting its claimed eDiscovery costs by addressing several issues raised by no later than January 5, 2015, with the plaintiff having until January 8, 2015 to submit a brief response to the further declaration if he chose to do so.

Case Background

The plaintiff sued the defendant for race and disability discrimination and retaliation. On August 19, 2014, the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted (with the plaintiff appealing the decision to the Ninth Circuit). After the summary judgment was granted, the defendant filed a Bill of Costs seeking $63,302.19 in costs as the prevailing party. The Clerk of Court reduced the amounts sought, awarding $50,617.61. The plaintiff then filed a Motion for Review of the Clerk’s Taxation of Costs and the trial judge referred the motion to Judge LaPorte’s Court for a Report and Recommendation. Judge LaPorte held a hearing on the matter on November 18, during which she requested a supplemental declaration from Defendant on the issue of which electronic discovery costs contained in the invoices are properly taxable, and allowed Plaintiff time to respond.

During oral argument, Judge LaPorte directed the parties to recent case law analyzing § 1920 as it applies to various categories of eDiscovery tasks and required further documentation from the parties. The defendant submitted a supplemental Declaration which reduced the defendant’s claimed ESI-related costs to $19,786.30, referencing CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc. The defendant claimed it “omitted approximately $13,886.65 in costs associated with de-duplicating, de-Nisting, culling extracted files using search terms, database and project management tasks, monthly hosting and licensing fees, and fees incurred for copying ESI onto backup media following production.”

The plaintiff responded that the reduced amount was “still too high” because, unlike the detailed ESI production process agreed to by the parties in CBT Flint Partners, here the parties “had no agreement as to format and Plaintiff made no request for documents to be produced in a particular format”. So the plaintiff argued that “all costs for file extraction and conversion were unnecessary and for the convenience of Defendant’s counsel”, contending that the defendant “should have simply copied responsive files to a storage device in the format in which they were ordinarily kept and provided that storage device to Plaintiff”.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge LaPorte agreed with the plaintiff that, “absent an agreement or rule governing the format of ESI production, Defendant’s recoverable costs are generally limited to those incurred during the third phase of its ESI production process, such as [the defendant’s eDiscovery provider] Blackstone’s assistance with document production including PDF conversion, Bates numbering, and loading the final production onto a secure FTP site for download.” However, she noted, “some preliminary tasks necessary to make the information readable may also be compensable.”

As a result, Judge LaPorte ordered the defendant to submit a further declaration of costs by January 5 to provide:

  • A breakdown of PDF conversion costs to detail what file and metadata costs were necessary to produce reasonably usable copies (as opposed to costs incurred for the defendant’s convenience to filter, search and review its own files prior to production),
  • A breakdown of which load files were created to separate electronic documents for production to the plaintiff (as opposed to those prepared for loading documents into the defendant’s review database), and
  • Support whether the “processing costs” incurred by the defendant were for the smaller subset of produced documents (as opposed to all documents reviewed).

So, what do you think? Should eDiscovery costs be recoverable in cases where the losing party did not request the documents in a particular format? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

2014 eDiscovery Case Law Yhttps://cloudnine.com/ediscoverydaily/case-law/2014-ediscovery-case-law-year-in-review-part-3/ear in Review, Part 3

As we noted yesterday and the day before, eDiscoveryDaily published 93 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 68 unique cases! Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to eDiscovery cost sharing and reimbursement, fee disputes and production format disputes. Today, let’s take a look back at cases related to privilege and inadvertent disclosures, requests for social media, cases involving technology assisted review and the case of the year – the ubiquitous Apple v. Samsung dispute.

We grouped those cases into common subject themes and will review them over the next few posts. Perhaps you missed some of these? Now is your chance to catch up!

PRIVILEGE / INADVERTENT DISCLOSURES

There were a couple of cases related to privilege issues, including one where privilege was upheld when the plaintiff purchased the defendant’s seized computer at auction! Here are two cases where disclosure of privileged documents was addressed:

Privilege Not Waived on Defendant’s Seized Computer that was Purchased by Plaintiff at Auction: In Kyko Global Inc. v. Prithvi Info. Solutions Ltd., Washington Chief District Judge Marsha J. Pechman ruled that the defendants’ did not waive their attorney-client privilege on the computer of one of the defendants purchased by plaintiffs at public auction, denied the defendants’ motion to disqualify the plaintiff’s counsel for purchasing the computer and ordered the plaintiffs to provide defendants with a copy of the hard drive within three days for the defendants to review it for privilege and provide defendants with a privilege log within seven days of the transfer.

Plaintiff Can’t “Pick” and Choose When it Comes to Privilege of Inadvertent Disclosures: In Pick v. City of Remsen, Iowa District Judge Mark W. Bennett upheld the magistrate judge’s order directing the destruction of an inadvertently-produced privileged document, an email from defense counsel to some of the defendants, after affirming the magistrate judge’s analysis of the five-step analysis to determine whether privilege was waived.

SOCIAL MEDIA

Requests for social media data in litigation continue, though there were not as many disputes over it as in years past (at least, not with cases we covered). Here are three cases related to social media data:

Plaintiff Ordered to Produce Facebook Photos and Messages as Discovery in Personal Injury Lawsuit: In Forman v. Henkin, a Motion to Compel was granted in part for a defendant who requested authorization to obtain records of the plaintiff’s private postings to Facebook.

Plaintiff Ordered to Re-Open Social Media Account for Discovery: In Chapman v. Hiland Operating, LLC, while noting that he was “skeptical” that reactivating the plaintiff’s Facebook account would produce any relevant, noncumulative information, North Dakota Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller ordered the plaintiff to “make a reasonable, good faith attempt” to reactivate her Facebook account.

Order for Financial Records and Facebook Conversations Modified Due to Privacy Rights: In Stallings v. City of Johnston City, Illinois Chief District Judge David R. Herndon modified an earlier order by a magistrate judge in response to the plaintiff’s appeal, claiming that the order violated the privacy rights of the plaintiff, and of minor children with whom the plaintiff had held conversations on Facebook.

TECHNOLOGY ASSISTED REVIEW

Technology assisted review continued to be discussed and debated between parties in 2014, with some disputes involving how technology assisted review would be conducted as opposed to whether it would be conducted at all. Courts continued to endorse technology assisted review and predictive coding, even going so far as to suggest the use of it in one case. Here are six cases involving the use of technology assisted review in 2014:

Court Rules that Unilateral Predictive Coding is Not Progressive: In In Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Delaney, Nevada Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen determined that the plaintiff’s unannounced shift from the agreed upon discovery methodology, to a predictive coding methodology for privilege review was not cooperative. Therefore, the plaintiff was ordered to produce documents that met agreed-upon search terms without conducting a privilege review first.

Court Rules in Dispute Between Parties Regarding ESI Protocol, Suggests Predictive Coding: In a dispute over ESI protocols in FDIC v. Bowden, Georgia Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith approved the ESI protocol from the FDIC and suggested the parties consider the use of predictive coding.

Court Sides with Defendant in Dispute over Predictive Coding that Plaintiff Requested: In the case In re Bridgepoint Educ., Inc., Securities Litigation, California Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt ruled that expanding the scope of discovery by nine months was unduly burdensome, despite the plaintiff’s request for the defendant to use predictive coding to fulfill its discovery obligation and also approved the defendants’ method of using search terms to identify responsive documents for the already reviewed three individual defendants, directing the parties to meet and confer regarding the additional search terms the plaintiffs requested.

Though it was “Switching Horses in Midstream”, Court Approves Plaintiff’s Predictive Coding Plan: In Bridgestone Americas Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp., Tennessee Magistrate Judge Joe B. Brown, acknowledging that he was “allowing Plaintiff to switch horses in midstream”, nonetheless ruled that that the plaintiff could use predictive coding to search documents for discovery, even though keyword search had already been performed.

Court Approves Use of Predictive Coding, Disagrees that it is an “Unproven Technology”: In Dynamo Holdings v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Texas Tax Court Judge Ronald Buch ruled that the petitioners “may use predictive coding in responding to respondent’s discovery request” and if “after reviewing the results, respondent believes that the response to the discovery request is incomplete, he may file a motion to compel at that time”.

Court Opts for Defendant’s Plan of Review including TAR and Manual Review over Plaintiff’s TAR Only Approach: In Good v. American Water Works, West Virginia District Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. granted the defendants’ motion for a Rule 502(d) order that merely encouraged the incorporation and employment of time-saving computer-assisted privilege review over the plaintiffs’ proposal disallowing linear privilege review altogether.

APPLE V. SAMSUNG

Every now and then, there is a case that just has to be covered. Whether it be for the eDiscovery related issues (e.g., adverse inference sanction, inadvertent disclosures, eDiscovery cost reiumbursement) or the fact that billions of dollars were at stake or the fact that the case earned its own “gate” moniker, the Apple v. Samsung case demanded attention. Here are the six posts (just from 2014, we have more in previous years) about this case:

Quinn Emanuel Sanctioned for Inadvertent Disclosure, Samsung Escapes Sanction: California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal has now handed down an order on motions for sanctions against Samsung and the Quinn Emanuel law firm in the never-ending Apple v. Samsung litigation for the inadvertent disclosure of confidential agreements that Apple had with Nokia, Ericsson, Sharp and Philips – now widely referred to as “patentgate”.

Apple Can’t Mention Inadvertent Disclosure in Samsung Case: Back in January, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP was sanctioned for their inadvertent disclosure in the Apple vs Samsung litigation (commonly referred to as “patentgate”). California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal handed down an order on motions for sanctions against Quinn Emanuel (in essence) requiring the firm to “reimburse Apple, Nokia, and their counsel for any and all costs and fees incurred in litigating this motion and the discovery associated with it”. Many felt that Samsung and Quinn Emanuel got off lightly. Now, Apple can’t even mention the inadvertent disclosure in the upcoming Samsung trial.

Apple Wins Another $119.6 Million from Samsung, But It’s Only 6% of What They Requested: Those of you who have been waiting for significant news to report from the Apple v. Samsung litigation, your wait is over! As reported last week in The Recorder, a California Federal jury ordered Samsung on Friday to pay Apple $119.6 million for infringing three of Apple’s iPhone patents. However, the award was a fraction of the nearly $2.2 billion Apple was requesting.

Samsung and Quinn Emanuel Ordered to Pay Over $2 Million for “Patentgate” Disclosure: Remember the “patentgate” disclosure last year (by Samsung and their outside counsel firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) of confidential agreements that Apple had with Nokia? Did you think they were going to avoid having to pay for that disclosure? The answer is no.

Court Refuses to Ban Samsung from Selling Products Found to Have Infringed on Apple Products: Apple may have won several battles with Samsung, including ultimately being awarded over $1 billion in verdicts, as well as a $2 million sanction for the inadvertent disclosure of its outside counsel firm (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) commonly known as “patentgate”. But, Samsung has may have won the war with the court’s refusal to ban Samsung from selling products that were found to have infringed on Apple products.

Apple Recovers Part, But Not All, of its Requested eDiscovery Costs from Samsung: Apple won several battles with Samsung, including ultimately being awarded over $1 billion in verdicts, as well as a $2 million sanction for the inadvertent disclosure of its outside counsel firm (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) commonly known as “patentgate”, but ultimately may have lost the war when the court refused to ban Samsung from selling products that were found to have infringed on Apple products. Now, they’re fighting over relative chicken-feed in terms of a few million that Apple sought to recover in eDiscovery costs.

Tomorrow, we will cover cases related to the most common theme of the year (three guesses and the first two don’t count). Stay tuned!

So, what do you think? Did you miss any of these? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

2014 eDiscovery Case Law Year in Review, Part 1

It’s time for our annual review of eDiscovery case law!  We had more than our share of sanctions granted and denied, as well as disputes over admissibility of electronically stored information (ESI), eDiscovery cost reimbursement, and production formats, even disputes regarding eDiscovery fees.  So, as we did last year and the year before that and also the year before that, let’s take a look back at 2014!

Last year, eDiscoveryDaily published 93 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 68 unique cases! And, believe it or not, we still didn’t cover every case that had eDiscovery impact. Sometimes, you want to cover other topics too.

Nonetheless, for the cases we did cover, we grouped them into common subject themes and will review them over the next few posts (a few of them could be categorized in more than one category, so we took our best shot). Perhaps you missed some of these? Now is your chance to catch up!

ADMISSIBILITY AND PROPORTIONALITY

As always, there are numerous disputes about data being produced and not being produced and whether the costs to do so are overly burdensome. Here are twelve cases related to admissibility, the duty to preserve and produce ESI and the proportionality for preserving and producing that ESI:

Split Decision between Plaintiff and Defendant Regarding Search Terms: In Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Giannoulias, Illinois District Judge John F. Grady resolved several motions regarding discovery proceedings in a $114 million lawsuit. Two of the motions concerned search terms for documents and electronically stored information (ESI), in which the plaintiff opposed the defendants’ request for six additional terms to be included in retrieving discovery documents. The court ruled that four additional search terms would be added, while two would be excluded.

Court Grants Motion to Compel Defendant to Produce Documents as Requested and Chronicle Approach: In Home Instead, Inc. v. Florance, following a motion to compel discovery on behalf of the plaintiff, Nebraska Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart ordered the defendant to produce documents requested during discovery and required the defendant to produce a sworn affidavit chronicling the methods used in their search for production of the discovery documents.

Electronic Discovery Dispute Sees Court Requesting Cooperation from Both Parties to Avoid “Court-Ordered Middle Ground”: In Fort Worth Employees’ Retirement Fund v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., a complex discovery dispute arose during the process of this securities action lawsuit revolving around the defendants’ loan products and offerings with regards to a specific consumer class, in which the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel an expanded discovery.

Definition of “Electronic Storage” Considered in Invasion of Privacy Lawsuit: In Cheng v. Romo, the interpretation of laws enacted prior to the modern Internet age served as a deciding factor in the outcome of this invasion of privacy lawsuit, which alleged a violation of the Stored Communications Act (SCA).

Government Ordered to Maintain Expensive Custom Database Shared with Criminal Defendant: In the criminal case of United States v. Shabudin, California Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas ordered the Government to continue to provide access to a Relativity Database used by the parties to review documents produced by the Government, instead of discontinuing access for the defendants several weeks before trial was to begin due to budgetary issues.

Portions of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel eDiscovery Ruled as “Overbroad” and “Moot” Reaffirmed by District Court: In Elkharwily v. Mayo Holding Co., Minnesota District Judge David S. Doty overruled the plaintiff’s objection to a magistrate judge’s order that denied in part the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, labeling some requests as overbroad or moot, particularly after the defendant contended it had already produced the requested discovery materials.

Court Denies Defendant’s Request to Image Plaintiff’s PCs Three Years after Termination: In Downs v. Virginia Health Systems, Virginia Magistrate Judge James G. Welsh, citing proportionality and privacy concerns, denied the defendant’s motion to compel the mirror imaging of the Plaintiff’s personal computers nearly three years after she had been terminated.

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Fallback Request for Meet and Confer after Quashing its Subpoena: In Boston Scientific Corporation v. Lee, California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal found time to preside over a case other than Apple v. Samsung and granted the motion to quash the plaintiff’s subpoena for the defendant’s laptops, refusing the plaintiff’s fallback position to meet and confer and referencing Leave it to Beaver in the process.

Court Rules to Limit Scope of Discovery, Noting that “Searching for ESI is only one discovery tool”: In United States v. Univ. of Neb. at Kearney, Nebraska Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart denied the government’s motion to compel discovery, finding that “ESI is neither the only nor the best and most economical discovery method for obtaining the information the government seeks” and stating that searching for ESI “should not be deemed a replacement for interrogatories, production requests, requests for admissions and depositions”.

Defendant Ordered to Produce Archived Emails Even Though Plaintiff Failed to Produce Theirs: In Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal granted the plaintiff’s motion ordering the defendant to produce relevant emails from its eight custodians, even though the plaintiff was unable to provide its own archival emails.

Court Determines that Software License Agreement Does Not Eliminate Production Obligation of Video: In Pero v. Norfolk Southern Railway, Co., Tennessee Magistrate Judge C. Clifford Shirley, Jr. granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery of a video declining to require the plaintiff to view the video at the defendant’s counsel’s office or obtain a license for the proprietary viewing software, ordering the defendant instead to either produce a laptop with the video loaded on it or to reimburse the plaintiff for the cost of a software license.

Image Isn’t Everything, Court Says, Denying Plaintiff’s Request for Imaging on Defendant’s Hard Drives: In Design Basics, LLC. v. Carhart Lumber Co., Nebraska Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart, after an extensive hearing on the plaintiff’s motion to compel “full disk imaging of Defendant’s hard drives, including Defendant’s POS server, secretaries’ computers, UBS devices. . .”, denied the motion after invoking the mandatory balancing test provided in FRCP Rule 26(b)(2)(C).

DISCOVERY ON DISCOVERY

Some cases are becoming so contentious that parties (or sometimes the courts themselves) are requesting for discovery on their opponent’s discovery process. Sometimes those requests were granted, sometimes not. Here were six cases in 2014 which involved requests for “discovery on discovery”:

‘Discovery About Discovery’ Motions Lead to Unusual Court Decision: In Ruiz-Bueno v. Scott, a discovery dispute in this wrongful death case arose, leading Ohio Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp to arrive at the unusual decision to direct a party to provide ‘discovery about discovery.’

Ruling on ESI Discovery Dispute Delayed as Court Requests Specific Information: In Worley v. Avanquest North America Inc., a putative class action involving PC security software, California Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler required the defendant to produce further information related to discovery disputes before a ruling would be issued.

Parties’ Failure to Cooperate Sparks Denial of Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider Court Ordered Discovery: In In Cactus Drilling Co. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., a largely contentious discovery phase was a major contributor to the decision of Oklahoma Chief District Judge Vicki Miles LaGrange regarding the defendant’s Motion to Reconsider, or Alternately, Motion for Clarification of the Court’s Order.

Plaintiffs Denied Motion to Depose Defendants Regarding ESI Processes Prior to Discovery Requests: In Miller v. York Risk Servs. Grp., Arizona Senior District Judge John W. Sedwick denied the plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, requesting permission to conduct depositions in order to determine the defendant’s manner and methods used for storing and maintaining Electronically Stored Information (ESI) prior to submitting their discovery requests.

Court Denies Defendant’s Request for Deposition Regarding Plaintiff’s Discovery Search Tools: In Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Hunt Control Sys., Inc., New Jersey Magistrate Judge James B. Clark III granted the plaintiff’s protective order to prevent the defendant from proceeding with a new deposition to review whether the plaintiff had used “appropriate search tools for ESI discovery,” after the requested discovery documents had already been produced.

Despite 18 Missing Emails in Production, Court Denies Request for “Discovery on Discovery”: In Freedman v. Weatherford Int’l, New York Magistrate Judge James C. Francis, IV denied the plaintiff’s request to, among other things, require the defendant to produce “certain reports comparing the electronic search results from discovery in this action to the results from prior searches” – despite the fact that the plaintiff identified 18 emails that the defendant did not produce that were ultimately produced by a third party.

We’re just getting started! Tomorrow, we will cover cases related to eDiscovery cost reimbursement, fee disputes and production format disputes. Stay tuned!

So, what do you think? Did you miss any of these? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Agrees with Defendants that Producing Medical Records in Native Form is an “Undue Burden” – eDiscovery Case Law
 

In Peterson v. Matlock, 11-2594 (FLW)(DEA). (D.N.J.Oct. 29, 2014), New Jersey Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Arpert denied the plaintiffs motion to compel defendants to produce the plaintiff's electronically stored medical records in “native readable format” after the defendants produced the records in PDF format, agreeing that the defendants had demonstrated that they would suffer an undue burden in complying with the plaintiff's request.

The plaintiff sought a native file production from a computer system that maintained medical files of prison inmates in a database application called “Centricity” from the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) related to his claim that he was beaten by several correctional officers while restrained with handcuffs.  The plaintiff's medical records were previously provided in a PDF file organized in reverse chronological order, which the plaintiff claimed renders the records difficult to navigate and interpret.  According to the plaintiff, when provided in PDF format, the record is missing “the functionality, searchable data points, and metadata which are part of the electronic medical record and are available to a provider…using Centricity.”  Additionally, the plaintiff claimed that the PDF record is missing metadata stored in Centricity in the form of an "audit trail" which records changes or additions to the record.

The defendants argued that the form in which the plaintiff's records were provided is the standard output and method of production and that to produce the records in the form requested by the plaintiff “would be an inordinate drain of time and manpower” because staff from the DOC would be required to “sort through each page of the medical record and make the determination as to which category it fits into.”

Judge Arpert stated that “While Plaintiff claims the record as provided in PDF format is difficult to interpret and navigate, Defendants have demonstrated that they would suffer an undue burden in complying with Plaintiff's request to provide the records in their native format. Although the PDF record provided may be less convenient for Plaintiff, requiring staff from the DOC to sort and identify each page of every inmate medical record would create a substantial hardship and/or expense, which outweighs Plaintiff's interests in receiving the records in their native format.”  As a result, the judge found “that Defendants have fulfilled their obligation with respect to the production of Plaintiff's medical records” and denied the plaintiff’s motion to compel.

So, what do you think?  Should the defendants have been compelled to produce the data natively?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Court Allows Costs for TIFF Conversion and OCR, Likens it to “Making Copies” – eDiscovery Case Law

In Kuznyetsov v. West Penn Allegheny Health Sys., No. 10-948 (W.D. Pa.Oct. 23, 2014), Pennsylvania Senior District Judge Donetta W. Ambrose upheld the Clerk of Courts issuance of Taxation of Costs for $60,890.97 in favor of the defendants and against the named the plaintiffs, including costs for “scanning and conversion of native files to the agreed-upon format for production of ESI”.

Case Background

The plaintiffs filed a collective action pursuant to §216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) against the defendants, which was ultimately decertified as Judge Ambrose ruled that the 824 opt-in plaintiffs were not similarly situated.  After that, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal, which Judge Ambrose granted, dismissing the claims of the opt-in Plaintiffs without prejudice and dismissing the claims of the named Plaintiffs with prejudice (the plaintiffs appealed and the Third Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction).

On October 15, 2013, the defendants filed a Bill of Costs seeking a total of $78,561.77. On October 31, 2013, the Clerk of Courts filed a Letter calling for objections to the Bill of Costs, which was followed in January of this year by objections from the named plaintiffs (to which the Defendants filed a response). On August 1, the Clerk of Courts issued his Taxation of Costs in the amount of $60,890.97 in favor of Defendants and against the named Plaintiffs.

Judge’s Ruling

Stating that “Rule 54(d)(1) creates a strong presumption that costs are to be awarded to the prevailing party”, Judge Ambrose analyzed the costs as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 1920, including §1920(4), which covers “Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any material where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case”.

Addressing the plaintiff’s contention that the costs awarded were for eDiscovery costs were not necessary and were awarded at unreasonably high rates and referencing the Race Tires case in her ruling, Judge Ambrose stated:

“With regard to unnecessary e-discovery costs and unreasonably high rates, Plaintiffs first argue that the costs associated with Optical Character Recognition (‘OCR’) were unnecessary…As Defendants point out, however, Plaintiffs requested the information be produced in, inter alia, OCR format…The ‘scanning and conversion of native files to the agreed-upon format for production of ESI constitutes `making copies of materials’ as pursuant to §1920(4)…Accordingly, I find the costs associated with OCR conversion are taxable.

Furthermore, I do not find the cost of 5 cents per page for TIFF services to be unreasonably high, nor do I find 24 cents per page for scanning paper documents to be unreasonably high…Consequently, I find not merit to this argument either.”

Rejecting the plaintiff’s arguments that “1) Defendants have unclean hands; 2) Plaintiffs are unable to pay the costs; and 3) it would be inequitable to force the three named Plaintiffs to pay the entire costs of defending against the claims of the opt-in Plaintiffs”, Judge Ambrose affirmed the amount of $60,890.97 in favor of Defendants.

So, what do you think?  Should the costs have been allowed for conversion of native files when they may have already been usable as is?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

The Importance of Metadata – eDiscovery Best Practices

This topic came up today with a client that wanted information to help justify the request for production from opposing counsel in native file format, so it’s worth revisiting here…

If an electronic document is a “house” for information, then metadata could be considered the “deed” to that house. There is far more to explaining a house than simply the number of stories and the color of trim. It is the data that isn’t apparent to the naked eye that tells the rest of the story. For a house, the deed lines out the name of the buyer, the financier, and the closing date among heaps of other information that form the basis of the property. For an electronic document, it’s not just the content or formatting that holds the key to understanding it. Metadata, which is data about the document, contains information such as the user who created it, creation date, the edit history, and file type. Metadata often tells the rest of the story about the document and, therefore, is often a key focus of eDiscovery.

There are many different types of metadata and it is important to understand each with regard to requesting that metadata in opposing counsel productions and being prepared to produce it in your own productions.  Examples include:

  • Application Metadata: This is the data created by an application, such as Microsoft® Word, that pertains to the ESI (“Electronically Stored Information”) being addressed. It is embedded in the file and moves with it when copied, though copying may alter the application metadata.
  • Document Metadata: These are properties about a document that may not be viewable within the application that created it, but can often be seen through a “Properties” view (for example, Word tracks the author name and total editing time).
  • Email Metadata: Data about the email.  Sometimes, this metadata may not be immediately apparent within the email application that created it (e.g., date and time received). The amount of email metadata available varies depending on the email system utilized.  For example, Outlook has a metadata field that links messages in a thread together which can facilitate review – not all email applications have this data.
  • Embedded Metadata: This metadata is usually hidden; however, it can be a vitally important part of the ESI. Examples of embedded metadata are edit history or notes in a presentation file. These may only be viewable in the original, native file since it is not always extracted during processing and conversion to an image format.
  • File System Metadata: Data generated by the file system, such as Windows, to track key statistics about the file (e.g., name, size, location, etc.) which is usually stored externally from the file itself.
  • User-Added Metadata: Data created by a user while working with, reviewing, or copying a file (such as notes or tracked changes).
  • Vendor-Added Metadata: Data created and maintained by an eDiscovery vendor during processing of the native document.  Don’t be alarmed, it’s impossible to work with some file types without generating some metadata; for example, you can’t review and produce individual emails within a custodian’s Outlook PST file without generating those out as separate emails (either in Outlook MSG format or converted to an image format, such as TIFF or PDF).

Some metadata, such as user-added tracked changes or notes, could be work product that may affect whether a document is responsive or contains privileged information, so it’s important to consider that metadata during review, especially when producing in native format.

Here’s an example of one case where the production of metadata was ordered and an answer to the question “Is it Possible for a File to be Modified Before it is Created?” (you might be surprised at the answer).

So, what do you think? Have you been involved in cases where metadata was specifically requested as part of discovery? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine Discovery. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine Discovery solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.